Re: [HumJanenge] KA Mr Sarbajit Roy

DSouza Wilberious Evanglist is right to some effect as far as the Writ of Certiorari is concerned.

But in case of the orders of the Infomation Commissioners, a Writ of Mandamus lie in the High Court only. Section 23 debars only the jurisdiction of the Civil and Criminal Courts from proceeding against the Information Commissioners.

If a Commissioner passes order contrary to provisions of law in the RTI Act, One can file a Writ Petion for Mandamus to invoke the Jurisdiction of the High Court/Supreme Court to set the correct prcess in motion.

That is what the Delhi High Court has done.

The definition of various types of writ petitions is given below:

Section 23,No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.

• The writ of prohibition is issued by a higher court to a lower court prohibiting it from taking up a case because it falls outside the jurisdiction of the lower court. Thus, the higher court transfers the case to itself.
• The writ of habeas corpus is issued to a detaining authority, ordering the detainer to produce the detained person in the issuing court, along with the cause of his or her detention. If the detention is found to be illegal, the court issues an order to set the person free.
• The writ of certiorari is issued to a lower court directing that the record of a case be sent up for review, together with all supporting files, evidence and documents, usually with the intention of overruling the judgement of the lower court. It is one of the mechanisms by which the fundamental rights of the citizens are upheld.
• The writ of mandamus is issued to a subordinate court, an officer of government, or a corporation or other institution commanding the performance of certain acts or duties.
• The writ of quo warranto is issued against a person who claims or usurps a public office. Through this writ the court inquires 'by what authority' the person supports his or her claim.

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Ashok Kumar <imaka@in.com> wrote:

Dear Mr Sarbajit,

Would greatly appreciate if you could offer your comments on the below email of Mr DSouza, and on his interpretations.

Thanks/Brgds

Anand

---------- Original message ----------
From:"DSouza Wilberious Evanglist"< wilevades@yahoo.co.uk >
Date: 4 Jan 11 23:00:17
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] CONVICT CAN SEEK CASE DETAILS:: HC
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com

Dear Gupta,

I donot understand how Courts entertain appeals against CIC or SICs order. Well person seeking information if agrieved by decision by CIC or SIC can seek remedy under Art 32 or 226 as RTI is a fundamental & human right of every citizen of India. but, not any Publlic Authority/

Read sections below of RTI Act 2005,

21.No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or any rule made thereunder.

22.The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923, and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

23,No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.

Parliament has enacted it. It is a reiteration of Constitutional provision that RTI is fundamental right. Section 22 gives it a overriding effect. Section 8(i) states what cannot be denied to Parliament or State Legislature cannot be denied to any individual;

Section 21 states no decision can be called in question in any court.

High Court of Delhi ruling does not become a law for whole of India just as what is stated in Art.141. There is nio cause to be agog.

Regards,

WEDS

---

From: M.K. Gupta <mkgupta100@yahoo.co.in>
To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, 4 January, 2011 20:44:13
Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] CONVICT CAN SEEK CASE DETAILS:: HC

HERE IS THE ORER OF THE HIGH COURT * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 10 + W.P.(C) 12428/2009 & CM APPL 12874/2009 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Pawan Sharma, Standing counsel with Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP and Mr. Laxmi Chauhan, Advocate along with SI Anil Kumar, Anti Corruption Branch versus D.K.SHARMA ..... Respondent In person. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER % 15.12.2010 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anti Corruption Branch ('DCP') is aggrieved by an order dated 25th September 2009 passed by the Central Information Commission ('CIC') directing the Petitioner DCP to provide to the Respondent copies of the documents sought by him. These documents include certified copies of D.D. entry of arrest of the Respondent and various other documents relating to the investigation of the case, under FIR No. 52 of 2003. The CIC found the denial of the information by the Petitioner by taking recourse of Section 8 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act') to be untenable. It was held that none of the clauses under Section 8 (1) covered subjudice matters and therefore, the information could not be denied. 2. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Pawan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and the Respondent who appears in W.P. (Civil) 12428/2009 Page 1 of 3 person. 3. Mr. Pawan Sharma referred to Section 172 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') and submitted that copies of the case diary can be used by a criminal court conducting the trial and could not be used as evidence in the case. He submitted that even the accused was not entitled, as a matter of right, to a case diary in terms of Section 172 (2) CrPC and that the provisions of the RTI Act have to be read subject to Section 172 (2) CrPC. Secondly, it is submitted that the trial has concluded and the Respondent has been convicted. All documents relied upon by the prosecution in the trial were provided to the Respondent under Section 208 CrPC. The Respondent could have asked for the documents sought by him while the trial was in progress before the criminal court. He could not be permitted to invoke the RTI Act after the conclusion of the trial. 4. The Respondent who appears in person does not dispute the fact that the trial court has convicted him. He states that an appeal has been filed which is pending. He submits that his right to ask for documents concerning his own case in terms of the RTI Act was not subject to any of the provisions of the CrPC. Finally, it is submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner at this stage, when the trial itself has concluded if the documents pertaining to the investigation are furnished to the Respondent. 5. The above submissions have been considered. 6. This Court is inclined to concur with the view expressed by the CIC that in W.P. (Civil) 12428/2009 Page 2 of 3 order to deny the information under the RTI Act the authority concerned would have to show a justification with reference to one of the specific clauses under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. In the instant case, the Petitioner has been unable to discharge that burden. The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of the information concerning such case. In the present case, the criminal trial has concluded. Also, the investigation being affected on account of the disclosure information sought by the Respondent pertains to his own case. No prejudice can be caused to the Petitioner if the D.D. entry concerning his arrest, the information gathered during the course of the investigation, and the copies of the case diary are furnished to the Respondent. The right of an applicant to seek such information pertaining to his own criminal case, after the conclusion of the trial, by taking recourse of the RTI Act, cannot be said to be barred by any provision of the CrPC. It is required to be noticed that Section 22 of the RTI Act states that the RTI Act would prevail notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and any other law for the time being in force. 7. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 25th September 2009 passed by the CIC. 8. The petition and the pending application are dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J DECEMBER 15, 2010 Rk W.P. (Civil) 12428/2009 Page 3 of --- On Mon, 3/1/11, Surendera M. Bhanot <surendera@avissoftware.com> wrote: From: Surendera M. Bhanot <surendera@avissoftware.com> Subject: Re: [rti4empowerment] CONVICT CAN SEEK CASE DETAILS:: HC To: rti4empowerment@googlegroups.com Date: Monday, 3 January, 2011, 10:00 AM Dear Mahendra Kumar Gupta Can you please mention the case authority in this case, please!!!! On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:15 AM, <mkgupta1952@gmail.com> wrote: Convict can seek case details: HC Rules In Favour Of Man Who Had Asked For Access To DD Entry Of Arrest Abhinav Garg TNN New Delhi: An RTI applican can seek information relating to his own criminal case after the conclusion of trial,the Delhi high court has ruled,asking the Delhi Police to supply copies of DD entry,case diaries and other information to a convict. Justice S Muralidhar upheld the order of central information commission (CIC) and dismissed a petition filed by DCP (anti corruption branch).The DCP had promptly challenged the CIC ruling that had asked him to furnish probe details to one D K Sharma,convicted on corruption charges. The right of an applicant to seek such information pertaining to his own criminal case,after conclusion of the trial,by taking recourse to the RTI Act,cant be said to be barred by any provision of the CrPC, Justice Muralidhar observed in his order,pointing out that the RTI Act as it is has an over-riding effect over previous laws. On being convicted,Sharma had sought certified copies of DD entry of his arrest,various other documents relating to the police investigation of his case lodged in 2003.The DCP invoked section 8 of the RTI Act and provisions of CrPC to deny Sharma information.The police argued only a trial court can grant permission during trial,for the police to supply case diaries to the accused.Since the trial was over in this case,Sharma had no legal right to seek the case details,according to the cops.Sharma then chose to go in appeal to CIC which ruled in his favour.Once the case reached HC,Sharma argued in person and countered the DCPs claim.He drew HCs attention to provisions of the RTI Act to maintain it gave him the right to ask for documents concerning his own case that is now in appeal stage. HC concurred with Sharmas arguments and faulted the police for being unable to demonstrate exactly why the information shouldnt be disclosed.The mere fact that a criminal case is pending may not by itself be sufficient unless there is a specific power to deny disclosure of information concerning such case,the court explained. -- Warm Regards Surendera M. Bhanot - President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh - Youth for Human Rights International YHR I - South Asia - CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh - Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh - Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh - Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022 Mob: 919-888-810-811 PHONE: 91-172-3013240 FAX: 91-172-2655763 Mail Me

Dear humjanenge ! Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID now!

--
Warm Regards

Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh 
- Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: 919-888-810-811
PHONE: 91-172-3013240
FAX: 91-172-2655763
Mail Me